Man struck by lightening twice within 5 min Caught on security camera - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Man struck by lightening twice within 5 min Caught on security camera

rasanh Avatar
5y, 8m agoPosted 5 years, 8 months ago
Man struck by lightening twice within 5 min.... Caught on security camera.


http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2lvjnrq&s=7
rasanh Avatar
5y, 8m agoPosted 5 years, 8 months ago
Options

All Comments

(40) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
#1
Man struck by lightening twice

Edited By: rasanh on May 12, 2011 02:23
#2
went down like a sack of ****
#3
I see your man being struck by lightening and raise you an aeroplane being struck by lightening

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/11/article-1386086-0BFF93A300000578-93_634x528.jpg

Edited By: sickly sweet on May 12, 2011 02:40
#4
Was I wrong in laughing?
#5
Most likely fake. I like the quote on one website:

However, experts say the video is likely fake as the chances of surviving a direct bolt of lightning are essentially zero… where as the chances of a YouTube video being fake are approximately 50 percent.
#6
Are those 2 puddles of pee when he gets up from each strike?

Edited By: ChrisUK on May 12, 2011 08:19
#7
ChrisUK
Are those 2 puddles of pee when he gets up from each strike?


I wondered that, but I presume it is "scorch marks".
#8
well fake, nice but obvious flaws
#9
Alfonse
well fake, nice but obvious flaws


such as?
#10
DragonChris
ChrisUK
Are those 2 puddles of pee when he gets up from each strike?


I wondered that, but I presume it is "scorch marks".


I get them in my bed sometimes.
#11
maddogb
Alfonse
well fake, nice but obvious flaws


such as?


keep freeze framing the lightening strike and check the light dispersion and the second scorch mark is a clone of the first. Also see the tutorials on VideoCoPilot website...............



Edited By: Alfonse on May 12, 2011 10:28: NOYB
banned#12
great fake anyway

btw, it's Lightning, not Lightening ;)
#13
csiman
great fake anyway

btw, it's Lightning, not Lightening ;)


soz thank you lol
#14
Search for a guy called Roy Sullivan... Think he was hit by lightning 10 times... and for real!

Edited By: baffledsalmon on May 12, 2011 09:07
#15
Alfonse
maddogb
Alfonse
well fake, nice but obvious flaws


such as?


keep freeze framing the lightning strike and check the light dispersion and the second scorch mark is a clone of the first. Also see the tutorials on VideoCoPilot website...............




only using mpc and media player and due to the low res, really can't confirm the scorch marks, they look different to me, certainly not identical,
the flashes appear to occur over 1 maybe 2 frames of 100fps per sec so difficult to ff and fairly accurate with actual strikes.
light dispersion looks ok, a bit localised but low cloud cover would do that.
the nice part is the single strike, a lot of fakes use forks which don't occur at that level due to the polar influence.
given statistics it prob is a fake but cant really count on it from your fault finding.
#16
maddogb
Alfonse
maddogb
Alfonse
well fake, nice but obvious flaws


such as?


keep freeze framing the lightning strike and check the light dispersion and the second scorch mark is a clone of the first. Also see the tutorials on VideoCoPilot website...............




only using mpc and media player and due to the low res, really can't confirm the scorch marks, they look different to me, certainly not identical,
the flashes appear to occur over 1 maybe 2 frames of 100fps per sec so difficult to ff and fairly accurate with actual strikes.
light dispersion looks ok, a bit localised but low cloud cover would do that.
the nice part is the single strike, a lot of fakes use forks which don't occur at that level due to the polar influence.
given statistics it prob is a fake but cant really count on it from your fault finding.


meh
#17
Makes me laugh when you have a go at a certain conspiracy theorist on here and then as soon as something like this comes up. FAKE FAKE FAKE!! X)
2 Likes #18
Adam2050
Makes me laugh when you have a go at a certain conspiracy theorist on here and then as soon as something like this comes up. FAKE FAKE FAKE!! X)



Lightening also causes violent muscle contraction, not a stumble to the ground

Check the shadows on the left............tthat would be lit up not still having the same shadow..........


so obvious........

http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4492/unledsy.png

shadow issues........

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/30/article-0-0BD8D4F400000578-587_634x342.jpg


Edited By: Alfonse on May 12, 2011 10:29: NOYB
#19
regardless of wether its fake or not, i nearly pmsl
#20
maddogb
Alfonse
maddogb
Alfonse
well fake, nice but obvious flaws


such as?


keep freeze framing the lightning strike and check the light dispersion and the second scorch mark is a clone of the first. Also see the tutorials on VideoCoPilot website...............




only using mpc and media player and due to the low res, really can't confirm the scorch marks, they look different to me, certainly not identical,
the flashes appear to occur over 1 maybe 2 frames of 100fps per sec so difficult to ff and fairly accurate with actual strikes.
light dispersion looks ok, a bit localised but low cloud cover would do that.
the nice part is the single strike, a lot of fakes use forks which don't occur at that level due to the polar influence.
given statistics it prob is a fake but cant really count on it from your fault finding.


fail
#21
Looks like he's wearing trainers to me, if so, how would the electricity earth through him?

I worked in a burns unit a long time ago and we had a man in who had been struck by lightning. Everyone wanted to come in to see him because he actually had a brown scorch mark across his back! oO
1 Like #22
Noob CGI
2 Likes #23
dcx_badass
Are you genuinely asking that? What a stupid question, so you think the lightning is powerful enough to jump from the clouds to the ground, but then can't jump past 1cm of rubber, dear god.



Do you really think lightning jumps? Dear god.
#24
sorry alfonse, whilst i agree its more likely a fake your methods at proving it so are severely flawed and therefore your claim its "obvious" is pure BS
the light source for the car shadow is pretty high intensity and could easily cause "burn" on the ccd causing a slow reaction to the sudden(ms) change from the strike.
#25
maddogb
sorry alfonse, whilst i agree its more likely a fake your methods at proving it so are severely flawed and therefore your claim its "obvious" is pure BS
the light source for the car shadow is pretty high intensity and could easily cause "burn" on the ccd causing a slow reaction to the sudden(ms) change from the strike.


but not slow enough to light the right hand side of the lane..............lol

Edited By: Alfonse on May 12, 2011 12:25
#26
lmao fake and gay
#27
Alfonse
maddogb
sorry alfonse, whilst i agree its more likely a fake your methods at proving it so are severely flawed and therefore your claim its "obvious" is pure BS
the light source for the car shadow is pretty high intensity and could easily cause "burn" on the ccd causing a slow reaction to the sudden(ms) change from the strike.

but not slow enough to light the right hand side of the lane..............lol

Facepalm
1 Like #28
He would have massive burns and a strike at the head to a leg would probably pass the heart which would probably kill you or atleast knock him out for a lot lot longer. Plenty of people have survived lightning strikes though.

Doubt trainers would serve as enough insolation but also the tree's are higher than he is so wouldn't those have been a "path of least resistance" etc.

I think it is more likely fake but the whole "lightning never strikes the same place twice" is also a myth as lightning does all the time. Striking a man twice like that and him walking away is extremely unlikely.

I'd go with fake anyway.
#29
Don't care if it was fake, made me laugh nice find :p
#30
Whats worse is I saw this on Channel 4 News on TV
banned#31
I laughed the second time, looks fake. I thought the umbrellas would have made better conductors.
#32
Alfonse
maddogb
sorry alfonse, whilst i agree its more likely a fake your methods at proving it so are severely flawed and therefore your claim its "obvious" is pure BS
the light source for the car shadow is pretty high intensity and could easily cause "burn" on the ccd causing a slow reaction to the sudden(ms) change from the strike.


but not slow enough to light the right hand side of the lane..............lol


the rh side of the lane isn't in shadow.
#33
maddogb
Alfonse
maddogb
sorry alfonse, whilst i agree its more likely a fake your methods at proving it so are severely flawed and therefore your claim its "obvious" is pure BS
the light source for the car shadow is pretty high intensity and could easily cause "burn" on the ccd causing a slow reaction to the sudden(ms) change from the strike.


but not slow enough to light the right hand side of the lane..............lol


the rh side of the lane isn't in shadow.


whateva Mr Blindside
#34
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/4492/unledsy.png

a very quick highlight/shadow and brightness/contrast adjustment in Photoshop

http://imageshack.us/m/90/8492/article00bd8d4f40000057.jpg
#35
not sure what your picture is supposed to mean i think you are just trying to give weight to your previous BS
the pic above highlights something i had noticed from the dm website, there actually is a change to the shadowed region and it aligns with the body of the guy/ the side of the vehicle and the angle at which he is struck.
this is actually giving credence to this being genuine, surprised me i can tell you.
I always believe its best to form an opinion from facts not "produce" facts to substantiate your opinion.
#36
maddogb
not sure what your picture is supposed to mean i think you are just trying to give weight to your previous BS
the pic above highlights something i had noticed from the dm website, there actually is a change to the shadowed region and it aligns with the body of the guy/ the side of the vehicle and the angle at which he is struck.
this is actually giving credence to this being genuine, surprised me i can tell you.
I always believe its best to form an opinion from facts not "produce" facts to substantiate your opinion.


hahahahahahahahahaha
#37
dcx_badass
sickly sweet
I see your man being struck by lightening and raise you an aeroplane being struck by lightening


Why do the daily fail exaggerate everything?
As this flight came into Heathrow, a jagged bolt of lightning smashed into the roof, right above the pilots’ heads.

It was no where near the pilots, was the middle of the plane.

MAIA
Looks like he's wearing trainers to me, if so, how would the electricity earth through him?

Are you genuinely asking that? What a stupid question, so you think the lightning is powerful enough to jump from the clouds to the ground, but then can't jump past 1cm of rubber, dear god.



Pleased to know I'm in good company asking stupid questions, lol. X)

Maybe I should have said why would it pass through him. Sorry if I am stupid folks, but I understood that lightening is attracted to the best conductor to the earth?
#38
dcx_badass
Ok that makes sense, yeah it has more reason to hit one of the trees.


there was some research done a few years back asking why lighning strikes 1 part of the ground and not others,
they set up cameras covering different parts of the uv spectrum etc and the surprising result was the earth gave off a discharge(cant remember the details poss static).
this rose in columns to about 3 or 4 feet and the areas where this occurred increased the chances of strikes by several thousand percent.
The theory then was areas of least conductivity at ground level matter less than much higher up.(supposed thats why you only see conductors on very high buildings.
#39
This is faked! If you take still shots of both strikes, the surrounding terrain is illuminated exactly the same despite the two points of strike reference! Also, the shadow of the van doesn't get washed out during either strike, nor does the car beside the man ever cast a shadow on the other side, both impossibilities!
1 Like #40
crusin2nite2002
This is faked! If you take still shots of both strikes, the surrounding terrain is illuminated exactly the same despite the two points of strike reference! Also, the shadow of the van doesn't get washed out during either strike, nor does the car beside the man ever cast a shadow on the other side, both impossibilities!


thanks for joining the site to bump this thread after 6 weeks...

enjoy your time here

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!